Rudd’s chief weapon lacks firepower

It might be his chief weapon to cajole the premiers into supporting his healthcare reforms, but experts believe Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd
would have almost no time to hold a referendum on the issue and little chance of gaining the electorate's support.

And it’s not even certain he would need to hold such a vote in the first place.

In a sign of how tight a timetable the federal government is running, Health Minister
Nicola Roxon
has already threatened to recall parliament early if premiers reject Rudd’s reform package next week.

To hold a referendum, the government must first present to parliament a bill to alter the constitution.

If the Senate passes the bill, the government has between two and six months to put the changes to voters.

If the Senate rejects it, the government must wait three months before again presenting the bill to parliament. Once the bill is voted down a second time, the government then asks the Governor-General to initiate a referendum.

Given the federal opposition’s recent voting record in the Senate, a three-month wait seems the most likely scenario.

The government does have that amount of time at its disposal, but only if it holds a special sitting of parliament in the weeks after the Council of Australian Governments meeting and again during the winter parliamentary recess.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

According to ABC electoral analyst Antony Green, the latest the Prime Minister can practically hold a double dissolution election – which he needs to do if he wants to circumvent the hostile Senate now holding up his reform agenda – is September 18.

That would mean calling an election by August 16.

To fit in a three-month wait before then, plus the inevitable referral of the bill to a Senate committee, the government would most likely need to hold special parliamentary sittings at both the start and the end of that period.

Sydney University constitutional law expert Anne Twomey says that apart from the usual problems of getting voters to back any constitutional change – let alone one as easily attacked as his health package – the Prime Minister would have little time to mount an education campaign to convince the public.

“I don’t think the states should be scared in the slightest of a referendum. It would have very little chance of passing," she says.

Reflecting claims by Opposition Leader
Tony Abbott
, Twomey says it is possible the Prime Minister could implement his proposed changes using existing constitutional powers over medical services or even trading corporations, although more comprehensive reforms may still require a referendum.